Julian Assange extradition appeal at supreme court - day two live blog

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/feb/02/julian-assange-extradition-appeal-at-supreme-court-day-two-live-blog

5.19pm Here is a summary of key events:

• The supreme court has heard two days of dense legal argument relating to Sweden's attempts to extradite Julian Assange to face accusations of rape and sexual assault, which he denies. The justices will now consider their verdict, which will be handed down within weeks.

• The WikiLeaks founder's appeal revolves around whether a prosecutor has the right to request an extradition - as Sweden's has - under the terms of the European arrest warrant (EAW) framework decision and the Extradition Act 2003 that incorporates it into British law.

• For Assange, Dinah Rose QC argued that the EAW's use of the term "judicial authorities" was meant to mean a judge or magistrate, and not a prosecutor, who is not independent.

• For Sweden, Clare Montgomery QC argued that the term "judicial authorities" was always meant to encompass prosecutors in some EU countries, and there was no requirement for the figure issuing the warrant to be independent.

• The lawyers clashed on the interpretation of many of the same sources, including the 1957 European convention on extradition and the statements ministers gave to MPs and peers during the passage of the extradition bill. Both QCs came under detailed questioning from the justices, and it was unclear which way the justices will lean. However, before the two-day hearing began legal experts expected the supreme court to back Sweden.

[gateley]

1. Thank you for this!

This has kind of fallen off the radar but it's important so I'm glad you posted.

I'd like to see him clear up those charges in Sweden, though. I seem to recall they were a littly wobbly?